The Supremes

[tx 3 putt 78725]

This course has been illegitimate for awhile, this only further proves it

but what can be done about it ?

[Neonmoon 38130]

This country is compromised 

[Nivek 17417]

51 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

This course has been illegitimate for awhile, this only further proves it

but what can be done about it ?

pack the court to make the fuck-heads lose every decision.

[Satchel 6983]

25 minutes ago, Nivek said:

pack the court to make the fuck-heads lose every decision.

That would be unethical. Chuckle.

[Ted Lange 16427]

 

Narrator.  The leaker was not removed 

[Nivek 17417]

1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

 

Narrator.  The leaker was not removed 

There was no secret.  They just pretended it was someone else and everyone figured out it was from a right wing fuckhead.

[Stilicho 1422]

3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

This course has been illegitimate for awhile, this only further proves it

but what can be done about it ?

Impeachment isn't unheard of. But it would require Dem supermajorities. The easiest / fastest way is through dilution. Expand the Court to give each Circuit a Justice. There are various combinations of how to pass out those new seats, but again... you need votes that aren't there at the moment. Dilution / expansion may be our legit last shot other than relying on our better angels.

Nothing will come of the Thomas / Alito bullshit, sadly. It's a hot topic in law how this Court is really pushing the bounds in results-oriented jurisprudence and open bias. Like having a Court of dumber, more malevolent Rehnquists.

[Gap03 3394]

Are the Dems going to start getting better about messaging?

I mean, it will probably end up achieving jack shit, but I like the barrage.  We just need MSNBC to put together a video montage with something burning / blowing up / otherwise scary to go with this so that maybe they can shame the GQP into explaining why they're not concerned about this (after the whole "LEaKS1!!1!" shitshow in the spring).  

[horn4life 3838]

The Supreme court now represents a Minority of the American People.  The racist minority to be specific.  No longer will racist gerrymandering be even looked at.  As "just because redistricting by Republicans always dilutes minority votes with the more racist white rural votes... you cannot judge the outcome for its reality.  Because you cannot be certain that an action that repeated causes a racist outcome is racist.

You know who I actually think is the biggest racist on the court... Clarence Thomas.  He loathes his skin color and likes to pretend that race doesn't exist and that his skin color has nothing to do with HIS success.  When in fact he really has a lot in common with Herschel Walker.  He was the best choice for a Black Republican to check a racial box. Nothing more, nothing less. It was his skin color rather that was the primary reason for nomination. To think otherwise is silliness.

Like Walker... he is "one of the good ones" to use Republican vernacular.

The Supreme court will likely move as much decision making as they can to the State houses.  As without states being able to gerrymander, the GOP has zero chance of winning in congress with any consistency.  Simply as nationally they lose the vote by millions of votes every national election.  In fact I we may never again see a Republican elected with the majority of the vote in our lifetimes.  Instead the GOP will do what they have done for years.  Focus on bringing racism and fear forward in rural areas, to try and win the electoral college with a minority of the vote.  It is the only pathway for the GOP currently.  The supremes will allow the most extreme race based redistricting to move forward.  Because... otherwise there will never be an opportunity for the Minority to pack the Supreme Court.  Which is exactly why the Supreme court can look past the actual outcomes of disenfranchising the black and minority vote, and pretend "we have no idea what the intent was..." in redistricting.

[Captainant 28575]

6 minutes ago, horn4life said:

You know who I actually think is the biggest racist on the court... Clarence Thomas.  He loathes his skin color and likes to pretend that race doesn't exist and that his skin color has nothing to do with HIS success.  When in fact he really has a lot in common with Herschel Walker.  He was the best choice for a Black Republican to check a racial box. Nothing more, nothing less. It was his skin color rather that was the primary reason for nomination. To think otherwise is silliness.

Thomas's father all but disowned him after he left seminary school to become a lawyer under the promise that he would use his legal degree to advance the civil rights struggle. Thomas now very cynically trades on the idealized image of his father as a traditional conservative tough man, when Thomas endured so much abuse from him and ultimately betrayed his father. 

Thomas really is the best depiction of the modern conservative movement. Cynical and dishonest. 

[tx 3 putt 78725]

alito is a waste of a human being

 

[tx 3 putt 78725]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

alito is a waste of a human being

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46184]

2 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

I’m sure none of the GQP knew him though. Never heard of such a person ever!

[Nivek 17417]

15 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

but Anna told me Russia was all nothingburger.....   

[jimmyjazz 47244]

12 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I’m sure none of the GQP knew him though. Never heard of such a person ever!

Regarding this tangent:  Trump's Nazi Dinner was attended by Karen Giorno, his former campaign director in Florida.  He claims Ye showed up with 3 guests (including Nick Fuentes) "whom I had never met and knew nothing about".

[Neonmoon 38130]

“Kanye, who just happens to be black,”

is my favorite Trump quote now 

[Satchel 6983]

Roberts joins dissenters over the SC’s abuse of the shadow docket:

In a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Monday, Trump Justice Amy Coney Barrett previewed the horrors to come from the extremist Supreme Court majority. She attempted to posit that the increasingly destructive opinions the majority has issued and will issue are not aimed at imposing a “policy result,” and that Americans should wait and “read the opinion” to learn why the court took those controversial actions.

Two days later, from the shadow docket, Barrett and four of her colleagues gutted states’ ability to protect their own waters, and with it put the 1972 Clean Water Act in jeopardy. Without issuing an opinion for any of us to read. The shadow docket ruling comprises one paragraph reinstating a Trump environmental rule that limits states’ ability to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams pending an appeals court hearing. There is no decision to read in the policymaking move by five conservative justices...

That it is five justices instead of six is notable because Chief Justice John Roberts was not in the majority. What’s even more notable is that Roberts signed onto Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, blasting the court’s majority for using the shadow docket to issue a momentous decision on the flimsiest of grounds. “The request for a stay rests on simple assertions—on conjectures, unsupported by any present-day evidence, about what States will now feel free to do,” Kagan wrote.

That the court issued this stay—when the applicants showed no harm and there was no “emergency” that required the Supreme Court to intervene—shows the “Court goes astray,” Kagan wrote. “It
provides a stay pending appeal, and thus signals its view of the merits, even though the applicants have failed to make the irreparable harm showing we have traditionally required.” The court just spoiled the case in the appeals process. It just told the lower court what it is going to do when the case ultimately reaches it.

“That renders the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all,” Kagan says. “The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations—except made without full briefing and argument.”

What is so significant is that this is the first instance of Roberts opposing the tactic. “Although Chief Justice Roberts has joined the Democratic appointees in prior shadow docket dissents (Roman Catholic Diocese; Tandon; SB8), this is the first time he’s joined an opinion criticizing the majority for abusing what Kagan here calls ‘the emergency docket,’” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, tweeted.

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19307]

5 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Roberts joins dissenters over the SC’s abuse of the shadow docket:

In a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Monday, Trump Justice Amy Coney Barrett previewed the horrors to come from the extremist Supreme Court majority. She attempted to posit that the increasingly destructive opinions the majority has issued and will issue are not aimed at imposing a “policy result,” and that Americans should wait and “read the opinion” to learn why the court took those controversial actions.

Two days later, from the shadow docket, Barrett and four of her colleagues gutted states’ ability to protect their own waters, and with it put the 1972 Clean Water Act in jeopardy. Without issuing an opinion for any of us to read. The shadow docket ruling comprises one paragraph reinstating a Trump environmental rule that limits states’ ability to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams pending an appeals court hearing. There is no decision to read in the policymaking move by five conservative justices...

That it is five justices instead of six is notable because Chief Justice John Roberts was not in the majority. What’s even more notable is that Roberts signed onto Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, blasting the court’s majority for using the shadow docket to issue a momentous decision on the flimsiest of grounds. “The request for a stay rests on simple assertions—on conjectures, unsupported by any present-day evidence, about what States will now feel free to do,” Kagan wrote.

That the court issued this stay—when the applicants showed no harm and there was no “emergency” that required the Supreme Court to intervene—shows the “Court goes astray,” Kagan wrote. “It
provides a stay pending appeal, and thus signals its view of the merits, even though the applicants have failed to make the irreparable harm showing we have traditionally required.” The court just spoiled the case in the appeals process. It just told the lower court what it is going to do when the case ultimately reaches it.

“That renders the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all,” Kagan says. “The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations—except made without full briefing and argument.”

What is so significant is that this is the first instance of Roberts opposing the tactic. “Although Chief Justice Roberts has joined the Democratic appointees in prior shadow docket dissents (Roman Catholic Diocese; Tandon; SB8), this is the first time he’s joined an opinion criticizing the majority for abusing what Kagan here calls ‘the emergency docket,’” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, tweeted.

 

Too little, too late I’m afraid.  

[tx 3 putt 78725]

19 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Roberts joins dissenters over the SC’s abuse of the shadow docket:

In a speech at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Monday, Trump Justice Amy Coney Barrett previewed the horrors to come from the extremist Supreme Court majority. She attempted to posit that the increasingly destructive opinions the majority has issued and will issue are not aimed at imposing a “policy result,” and that Americans should wait and “read the opinion” to learn why the court took those controversial actions.

Two days later, from the shadow docket, Barrett and four of her colleagues gutted states’ ability to protect their own waters, and with it put the 1972 Clean Water Act in jeopardy. Without issuing an opinion for any of us to read. The shadow docket ruling comprises one paragraph reinstating a Trump environmental rule that limits states’ ability to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams pending an appeals court hearing. There is no decision to read in the policymaking move by five conservative justices...

That it is five justices instead of six is notable because Chief Justice John Roberts was not in the majority. What’s even more notable is that Roberts signed onto Justice Elena Kagan’s dissent, blasting the court’s majority for using the shadow docket to issue a momentous decision on the flimsiest of grounds. “The request for a stay rests on simple assertions—on conjectures, unsupported by any present-day evidence, about what States will now feel free to do,” Kagan wrote.

That the court issued this stay—when the applicants showed no harm and there was no “emergency” that required the Supreme Court to intervene—shows the “Court goes astray,” Kagan wrote. “It
provides a stay pending appeal, and thus signals its view of the merits, even though the applicants have failed to make the irreparable harm showing we have traditionally required.” The court just spoiled the case in the appeals process. It just told the lower court what it is going to do when the case ultimately reaches it.

“That renders the Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all,” Kagan says. “The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations—except made without full briefing and argument.”

What is so significant is that this is the first instance of Roberts opposing the tactic. “Although Chief Justice Roberts has joined the Democratic appointees in prior shadow docket dissents (Roman Catholic Diocese; Tandon; SB8), this is the first time he’s joined an opinion criticizing the majority for abusing what Kagan here calls ‘the emergency docket,’” Stephen Vladeck, a University of Texas law professor, tweeted.

 

fuck that cunt 

[Brisketexan 106965]

Too little, too late I’m afraid.  

Yep. I genuinely believe that Roberts cares about the credibility and respectability of the court. But like so many blind conservatives these days, he thought he could engage in their BS and manage/moderate it. But he miscalculated. Dictatorial authoritarianism cannot be moderated.

[Bozo_Casanova 26887]

On 11/22/2022 at 12:37 AM, Gap03 said:

Are the Dems going to start getting better about messaging?

Lol no

[Bozo_Casanova 26887]

13 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. I genuinely believe that Roberts cares about the credibility and respectability of the court.

Punk’d

[tx 3 putt 78725]

47 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. I genuinely believe that Roberts cares about the credibility and respectability of the court. But like so many blind conservatives these days, he thought he could engage in their BS and manage/moderate it. But he miscalculated. Dictatorial authoritarianism cannot be moderated.

fuck him to hell and back. His piece of shit record speaks for itself. Hopefully someone kicks him in the balls today and tomorrow 

[Satchel 6983]

The Dems need to amp up talk about expanding the Court.

[Biff Tannen 46184]

8 minutes ago, Satchel said:

The Dems need to amp up talk about expanding the Court.

I really don't see how it would happen.  What would it take from a legislative standpoint?  And it would sure as shit drive up the R turnout in 2024.

[WhatTheBuck 28935]

5 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

“Kanye, who just happens to be black,”

is my favorite Trump quote now 

“Look at my African-American over here!”

 

[Captainant 28575]

1 hour ago, Satchel said:

The Dems need to amp up talk about expanding the Court.

The answer in right on front of them: have a justice for each circuit court like we used to

[Satchel 6983]

2 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I really don't see how it would happen.  What would it take from a legislative standpoint?  And it would sure as shit drive up the R turnout in 2024.

It might give the Court pause and allow the wingers to tap the brakes on their aggressive approach in abusing the shadow docket. It might also drive up turnout in Dem camps.

[Js1 87220]

17 hours ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

Too little, too late I’m afraid.  

RESIGN THEN BITCH

[kevwun 16444]

17 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. I genuinely believe that Roberts cares about the credibility and respectability of the court. But like so many blind conservatives these days, he thought he could engage in their BS and manage/moderate it. But he miscalculated. Dictatorial authoritarianism cannot be moderated.

If he really cared, he wouldn't happily gut Voting Rights at every opportunity.  He's still a piece of shit like the others, he just likes to pretend he isn't from time to time.

Edited November 28, 2022 by kevwun

[RPM 26660]

Its pretty clear the damage done by Trump was was severe and long lasting. The legitimacy of SCOTUS has been removed.

[wildcat09 29595]

43 minutes ago, kevwun said:

If he really cared, he wouldn't happily gut Voting Rights at every opportunity.  He's still a piece of shit like the others, he just likes to pretend he isn't from time to time.

This. Roberts wants to keep black people from voting just like Alito, but doesn't have the balls to take the public criticism that comes from stating that plainly.

[Nivek 17417]

19 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Yep. I genuinely believe that Roberts cares about the credibility and respectability of the court. But like so many blind conservatives these days, he thought he could engage in their BS and manage/moderate it. But he miscalculated. Dictatorial authoritarianism cannot be moderated.

Isn't he the asshole who basically claimed we shouldn't criticize them for their corruption, I mean if they make bullshit decisions based on bullshit precedence or bullshit evidence, we should just take it because otherwise to criticize their bullshit, is an attack on their legitimacy?  Not their bullshit actions, that is above reproach.   

[jimmyjazz 47244]

Same guy.

[Mdhorn 6166]

18 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I really don't see how it would happen.  What would it take from a legislative standpoint?  And it would sure as shit drive up the R turnout in 2024.

I'd always plan for high R turnout and do the right thing.  The SCOTUS is compromised.  Right the ship now, while there are numbers.  

[Chad Fuck 18161]

I'd always plan for high R turnout and do the right thing.  The SCOTUS is compromised.  Right the ship now, while there are numbers.  

This. The scotus has delegitimized itself. It’s hard to understate how destabilizing this will be in the long term. Instead of George Washington’s being humbled by the awesome responsibilities of power, we have six people who are petty dictators who are now feeling their oats. They have power and they’re going to use it to their ends without the slightest compulsion to adhere to the law or precedent. Leaking opinions, getting wined and dined by parties that have matters before the court, misusing the shadow docket, aiding an insurrection, etc. etc. The law was the last thin line against authoritarianism in this country. It is wavering mightily.

[hobbes2702 13496]

On 11/28/2022 at 11:03 AM, Mdhorn said:

I'd always plan for high R turnout and do the right thing.  The SCOTUS is compromised.  Right the ship now, while there are numbers.  

How?

[tx 3 putt 78725]

This case scares me with the Thomas’s having way too much say over this court …

 

[The Royal We 3100]

Yea, that one kind of feels like it's for all the marbles.

[Satchel 6983]

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) are also interested in examining claims about a concerted effort by religious conservatives to woo the justices through meals and social engagements. They wrote to Roberts on Sunday, making clear that if the court won’t investigate the alleged ethical breaches, lawmakers are likely to launch their own probe.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/20/supreme-court-roberts-whitehouse-johnson-00069673

[Cacti 191]

On 11/30/2022 at 6:15 AM, Chad Fuck said:

Leaking opinions, getting wined and dined by parties that have matters before the court, misusing the shadow docket, aiding an insurrection, etc. etc.

Out of curiosity, what SCOTUS ruling has aided an insurrection?

[Chad Fuck 18161]

Out of curiosity, what SCOTUS ruling has aided an insurrection?

I didn’t say anything about opinions. I was alluding to the cozy nature of Thomas, his wife and the insurrectionists. Coupled with Thomas’s failure to refuse himself, this is a huge appearance of impropriety. Lawyers are trained that that’s a big no-no. Yet here we have a Scotus Justice applying the “rules for me but not for thee” doctrine. That doesn’t help the rule of law, it diminishes it.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/30/1089595933/legal-ethics-experts-agree-justice-thomas-must-recuse-in-insurrection-cases

[CooterBrown 18289]

This case scares me with the Thomas’s having way too much say over this court …
 

[tx 3 putt 78725]

15 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

[Mdhorn 6166]

On 11/30/2022 at 12:04 PM, hobbes2702 said:

How?

Continue to load the lower and at least try to expand the court.

[Cacti 191]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

I didn’t say anything about opinions. I was alluding to the cozy nature of Thomas, his wife and the insurrectionists. Coupled with Thomas’s failure to refuse himself, this is a huge appearance of impropriety. Lawyers are trained that that’s a big no-no. Yet here we have a Scotus Justice applying the “rules for me but not for thee” doctrine. That doesn’t help the rule of law, it diminishes it.

While I agree that Thomas should recuse himself from insurrection cases, he not doing so doesn’t support your specific claim that either he, or SCOTUS in general, “aided an insurrection.”

[Chad Fuck 18161]

13 minutes ago, Cacti said:

While I agree that Thomas should recuse himself from insurrection cases, he not doing so doesn’t support your specific claim that either he, or SCOTUS in general, “aided an insurrection.”

I see his unabashed support of his wife (a known insurrection supporter) and his refusal to recuse himself from insurrection cases as aid and support for insurrectionists.  I think that diminishes himself and the Court.  You don't.  That's cool.  Hook 'em.  

 

 

[Foosters 18286]

44 minutes ago, Cacti said:

While I agree that Thomas should recuse himself from insurrection cases, he not doing so doesn’t support your specific claim that either he, or SCOTUS in general, “aided an insurrection.”

Guess it depends on whether or not you believe you can provide aid to something after the fact. The crime of "accessory after the fact" would support such a proposition, and Thomas being the lone dissent on the case wherein the J6 committee sought presidential records as part of their insurrection investigation would support the argument that he is aiding the insurrectionists.

[chainsaw 10298]

He did what he could to cover it up.

[tx 3 putt 78725]